by Frank James
We’re introducing a new feature called, for now, “MediaCurves on The Swamp.” You can see it in this posting as well as in this blog’s right rail.
It’s a short web show that takes a look at political videos from both inside and outside-the- Beltway perspectives. It features a couple of Tribune journalists discussing political videos and the reactions of on-line focus groups of "real people" to the same videos. Yes, it’s Siskel and Ebert’s “At the Movies,” only without Siskel, Ebert or the movies.
But what we have is MediaCurves, a technology created by HCD Research, a market research company. The technology is a lot like dial testing by focus groups, only it uses a far greater number of participants.
It allows hundreds of people on-line to view video content and to react to it in real time, second by second. Participants’ responses are averaged and transformed into curves superimposed over the video. Siskel and Ebert never had that.
We also have in this debut show Clarence Page, the Chicago Tribune’s Pulitzer Prize winning, columnist who was one of the regulars on that venerable Washington shout fest McLaughlin Group, and James Oliphant, who covers the Supreme Court for the Chicago Tribune but also does political reporting when called on.
Both Clarence and Jim watch and discuss the ads, first without seeing the focus-group reaction. Then they get to see the ads again, this time with the audience-reaction curves. That opens up a whole new vein for discussion.
The two ads up in this show are Sen. Hillary Clinton’s titled “There for You” and Mitt Romney’s “Experience Counts.” We’d love your reaction, too.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s ad titled “There for You”
Hillary isn't my first choice for the Dem nomination but I have to admit, if she wins the election I'll enjoy watching the exploding heads from the rightwing lunitic fringe (Springfield Jerry, Lil Johnny Devola, Brucie etc.)
I'd even start watching Fox Noise Channel just for the pure joy of watching Bill-O and Seany repeatedly headbutt each other.
GO HILLARY!
Posted by: John E | November 16, 2007 3:36 PM
Mr. James, this was a good idea gone horribly wrong. The premise that real people would get some input besides the 'pundits' was immediately appealing. Instead, we get Page & Oliphant yukking it up with a tiny graph showing what Republic and Democratic voters think about the ad. Why couldn't we see 5 or 6 average Joes and Janes debate the merits of the ads? Or why couldn't we have Republics viewing Democratic ads and vice versa? This is more back slapping, inside the beltway dreck that we all know and loathe.
A question for regular Swampdwellers Left and Right: Do you folks think that Russert, McLaughlin, Broder, et al... actually INFORM us, or do you think they are a bunch of self important gas bags more interested in 'Gotcha' moments? The floor is open.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | November 16, 2007 4:12 PM
Yeah, Hillary was there for the seniors when the administration she was co-president of enacted THE LARGEST tax increase in history on seniors. That sure was being there for them!
In regard to the "Siskel and Ebert" duo. I got a chuckle when Clarence Page said of Romney's ad that "I ran this and I ran that and I immediately think ran it into the ground." Earth to Clarence: Romney was a successful businessman. He successfully ran the Olympics in Salt Lake City, and he was a successful Republican governor of a Democratic state.
Overall, a nice little feature here, Swampsters.
Posted by: John D | November 16, 2007 4:25 PM
Posted by: weinerdog43 | November 16, 2007 4:12 PM
weiner,
I hereby volunteer my reviewing services to the Swamp and I promise to be "fair and balanced", nyuk nyuk nyuk....
Posted by: John E | November 16, 2007 4:52 PM
Alternate Title:
"We're from the gov't and we are here to pull the plug"
Posted by: Terry | November 16, 2007 5:21 PM
I'd rather see John E debate John D than Page and Oliphant.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | November 16, 2007 6:11 PM
A question for regular Swampdwellers Left and Right: Do you folks think that Russert, McLaughlin, Broder, et al... actually INFORM us, or do you think they are a bunch of self important gas bags more interested in 'Gotcha' moments? The floor is open.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | November 16, 2007 4:12 PM
Yup. As for Sen. Clinton's ad, I think what the Dems are going to be saying late next year is "There but for you, Hillary."
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | November 16, 2007 8:54 PM
Weiner, you are partially correct. Certainly most of the so-called pundits are folks who think they are all-important teachers and we couldn't think without their help. In the case of John E and some of your other brethren, those pundits are probably onto something though.
In regard to a debate between me and John E.: I'm not sure me humiliating the mentally deranged, challenged and weak would be considered fair.
Posted by: John D | November 16, 2007 11:30 PM
[quote]
Yeah, Hillary was there for the seniors when the administration she was co-president of enacted THE LARGEST tax increase in history on seniors.
Posted by: John D | November 16, 2007 4:25 PM
[/quote]
Yeah, that tax increase sure trashed the American economy in the 1990s. NOT!
Let's see: The Dow Jones Average is up 40% since Dubya took office, and the Dow was up OVER 315% when Clinton was President. Is 315% a larger increase than 40%? Not in Geographically Challenged Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood"'s alternate reality.
Posted by: BC | November 17, 2007 11:55 AM
BC, stifle yourself. The stock market also began to crash by the end of Clintoon's term because the Tech bubble bursted as its growth was not based on profits.
But, it's nice to see you were in favor on the largest tax increase in history on senior citizens.
Posted by: John D | November 17, 2007 1:26 PM